On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> + * to avoid circular header dependencies.
> >
> > :(
>
> Hmm. I could probably fix this, but it involves (at least) moving a
> struct definition and adding several new includes, and I'm not sure
> it'll actually converge to something working.
Yeah, it's include hell. Looked at it and it's major churn.
> >> + */
> >> +struct cpu_entry_area
> >> +{
> >> + char gdt[PAGE_SIZE];
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +#define CPU_ENTRY_AREA_PAGES (sizeof(struct cpu_entry_area) / PAGE_SIZE)
> >
> >> +static inline unsigned int __get_cpu_entry_area_page_index(int cpu, int
> >> page)
> >> +{
> >> + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct cpu_entry_area) % PAGE_SIZE != 0);
> >> +
> >> + return FIX_CPU_ENTRY_AREA_BOTTOM - cpu*CPU_ENTRY_AREA_PAGES - page;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +#define __get_cpu_entry_area_offset_index(cpu, offset) ({ \
> >> + BUILD_BUG_ON(offset % PAGE_SIZE != 0); \
> >> + __get_cpu_entry_area_page_index(cpu, offset / PAGE_SIZE); \
> >> + })
> >> +
> >> +#define get_cpu_entry_area_index(cpu, field) \
> >> + __get_cpu_entry_area_offset_index((cpu), offsetof(struct
> >> cpu_entry_area, field))
> >
> > Any reason why those need to be macros?
>
> The former is a macro because I doubt that BUILD_BUG_ON is valid in
> that context in a function.
Fair enough.
> The latter is a macro because 'field' is a name, not a value.
Bah. right.
Thanks,
tglx
